as a philosophically naive [occassional] participant
in these discussions -- interested mainly in what they
can tell me about understanding films -- i've been
reading the recent thread about "truth" pretty carefully . . .
i'm hesitant to join the fray [though i did once, at a
conference while i was in grad school, ask rorty if
he thought what he was saying was "true"] but i
do want to call attention to a passage in a recent
obviously thoughtful memo from tariq zaid . . . i
quote it without any comment at all except to
highlight one phrase by putting it in CAPS . . . i'd be
delighted if someone wanted to weigh in on the
implied dilemma
mike
------------------
original message:
>Now of course we are already in the classic paradox of
>.post-structuralism - are D&G asserting that their
>model is 'true' (in a binary distinction Vs 'false'),
>or should be imposed as yet another hierarchy? ... not
>really - they try and write/think their way out of the
>structures of binary/tree logic by suggesting models
>of thought like the rhizome that are radically
>anti-hierarchical, that do not impose structure but ON
>THE CONTRARY undo structure and binary distinctions,
>that are neither one thing nor the other, always +
>everywhere middle as opposed to top or bottom, and
>their opposition while, for now, perhaps, retaining a
>trace of the binary, uses this logic to try to undo
>binarism itself
|